In Jonathan Glover’s, “Humanity: A Moral History of the
Twentieth Century,” He talks about the holocaust and questions how humans could
experiment on other humans. Ellis answers this by summarizing Glover’s words, “…atrocities
are accompanied by humiliation and dehumanization: pejorative terminology,
degrading conditions, derogative images. People flip a mental switch and reclassify
others as “nonpersons,” making it easier to kill them (9).” So by classifying other beings as nonpersons (dehumanizing them) one can experiment on them. This leads me to my “uneasy” feelings towards the relationship between biotechnology and art.
To temper with nature as a form of art is…a scary thought,
especially if the creations do not come out accurate. Take for instance Marta
Dimenezas modifying wings of living butterflies
to change their patterns; this resulted with the wings having holes in them. For
Edward Katz’ “Alba”, because his approach concluded with his experiment or
artwork being successful (the experiment could be used for the good of
humanity; as mentioned in Part One with aiding drugs), and treating Alba
non-abusively, it leads me to look at it differently. I’m not for
biotechnological art, nor am I against it.
What Troubles Me:
For living creatures that are not categorized as humans, we
dehumanize them because they are not
I guess in the end, as the Dahlia Lama comments in the novel,
“The Quantum and the Lotus,” everything we do is based on intent. I think that is
what we have to be attentive to for scientists who wish to categorize biotechnology
as a palette and labeling themselves as artists. What are their intentions going into
a project?
Of course...the intentions make the process of going into an experiment or creation as just or
unjust;we still have a moral responsibility for intentions that result in an unethical aftermath.
Works
Cited
Ellis, Donald G. Transforming
Conflict: Communication and Ethnopolitical Conflict. Lanham, MD:
Rowman
& Littlefield, 2006. Print.
Glover, Jonathan. Humanity: A Moral
History of the Twentieth Century. New Haven, CT: Yale UP,
2000. Print.
Ricard, Matthieu, and Xuan Thuan.
Trinh. The Quantum and the Lotus: A Journey to the Frontiers
Where Science
and Buddhism Meet. New York: Crown, 2001. Print.
Vesna, Victoria. "5 Bioart Pt1
1280x720." YouTube. YouTube, 18 Sept. 2013. Web. 11 May 2015.
Vesna, Victoria. "5 BioArt
Pt2." YouTube. YouTube, 17 May 2012. Web. 11 May 2015.
Vesna, Victoria. "5 BioArt
Pt3." YouTube. YouTube, 17 May 2012. Web. 11 May 2015.
Vesna, Victoria. "5 BioArt
Pt4." YouTube. YouTube, 17 May 2012. Web. 11 May 2015.
I really liked how extensively you discussed the morality of art that uses biotech. It seems like you are not against genetic engineering for science but are wary about its use in art. I feel the same way about biotech in art. In my post I argued that the artists should take steps to not cause the animal any pain, but your post made me think more about my position. It is true once we start changing the genetics of an organism, we might start to think of it as something less that a living breathing organism. Maybe artists should be limited to showcasing the results of biotech experiments instead of going ahead and working on other organisms to create art.
ReplyDeleteKimberly,
ReplyDeleteFantastic post. I just saw that "brute" poster at the Getty, in an exhibition based on propaganda posters from WW1 / WW2. I highly recommend checking it out.
Also, the questions you bring up are very thought provoking; where do we draw the line on experimentation? I think a big difference between (most) human experimentation and animal experimentation is consent. With humans, researchers must get consent, and often even compensate the person for their time, but with animals, we can exploit them, put them under the most inhumane conditions all in the name of science. With different definitions on what is a human life ( insert abortion debate here ) how far off are we really from non-consensual human experimentations?